Jump to content

Good News About National Reciprocity!

WARFACE

By WARFACE
in National Politics

Recommended Posts

vito Member

vito

Posted
Posted

The solution to this and many other issues is to have the filibuster totally done away with. While some see the filibuster as a useful tool to prevent "the tyranny of the majority", in today's totally partisan Congress it is nothing less than a disgruntled minority political party's way of stopping any and all legislation from reaching the desk of the President. It totally subverts the very legislative process that created this process in the past. Senate Majority Leader Mitch O'Connell would be serving the nation well by changing the rules to totally eliminate this roadblock to legislative action. To the naysayers who fear that the Democrats would use this change to reduce the Republicans to irrelevance should they again take control of the Senate, now that the "nuclear option" has been used for a Supreme Court nominee, I have no doubt that the Dems would do away with the filibuster the first time a minority Republican Senate tried to stop some liberal legislation. We might as well get the benefit of doing this while Republicans have control of Congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
spec4 Member

spec4

Posted
Posted

My judgement will be withheld for a year. I figure that is an appropriate timeframe to see how this will go. Anything sooner is speculating. He has a ton on the table, a media constantly at his (and his kids) heels, Obama hanging around DC and many years of terrible government to unwind. I know God did it in six days and rested on the seventh, but Trump isn't God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hipshot Percussion Member

Hipshot Percussion

Posted
Posted

I voted for Trump for one reason - Supreme Court Justices. Whatever else happens, happens. I can't control it now. If he gets another pick or three onto the Court, all the Second Amendment stuff will take care of itself. All I know, is that by voting for Trump, we didn't lose our Country, and make no mistake about it, we were standing on the precipice in hurricane winds. We have Gorsuch to replace Scalia - which gets the Constitution back to even - and if he makes one, two, or three more good picks like that one, my Grand-kids will be safe.

 

Everything else, at this point, is just white noise... because, you know... Politicians...

 

JMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mrmagloo Member

mrmagloo

Posted
Posted

I voted for Trump for one reason - Supreme Court Justices. Whatever else happens, happens. I can't control it now. If he gets another pick or three onto the Court, all the Second Amendment stuff will take care of itself. All I know, is that by voting for Trump, we didn't lose our Country, and make no mistake about it, we were standing on the precipice in hurricane winds. We have Gorsuch to replace Scalia - which gets the Constitution back to even - and if he makes one, two, or three more good picks like that one, my Grand-kids will be safe.

 

Everything else, at this point, is just white noise... because, you know... Politicians...

 

JMO

 

x2. Couldn't have said it any better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldMarineVet Member

OldMarineVet

Posted
Posted

I think national carry reciprocity needs to be established legislatively not through an executive action. Right now there have been at least 2 bills introduced for it:

 

1) Senate, S.446 - Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,Sen Cornyn, John [R-TX] (Introduced 02/27/17)

2) House, H.R.38 - Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC-8] (Introduced 01/03/2017)

 

Seems like Congress needs to be pressured since it's in their court. Trump has supported national carry reciprocity verbally and will sign it when passed. Can't make new law with executive action. Maybe our lobbyist, NRA, could help more now that Trump's Gorsuch nomination has succeeded. Let's pressure them. Below is how the NRA is looking at national carry reciprocity at a high level.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gangrel Member

gangrel

Posted
Posted

I think national carry reciprocity needs to be established legislatively not through an executive action. Right now there have been at least 2 bills introduced for it:

 

1) Senate, S.446 - Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,Sen Cornyn, John [R-TX] (Introduced 02/27/17)

2) House, H.R.38 - Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC-8] (Introduced 01/03/2017)

 

Seems like Congress needs to be pressured since it's in their court. Trump has supported national carry reciprocity verbally and will sign it when passed. Can't make new law with executive action. Maybe our lobbyist, NRA, could help more now that Trump's Gorsuch nomination has succeeded. Let's pressure them. Below is how the NRA is looking at national carry reciprocity at a high level.

 

Agreed. Aside from the fact that many of us were all over Obama trying to rule (or in most cases, give the appearance of ruling) by executive action, and it is quite hypocritical to then want our conservative President to do the same, anything put in place by the stroke of a pen is one stroke of a pen away from being taken away by the next Liberal President. This needs to be done the right way, passed by Congress and signed into law, not handed down as an order from the Oval Office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NRApistol Member

NRApistol

Posted
Posted

From the article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-am-going-to-come-through-for-you-trump-vows-to-nra/2017/04/28/3258b3e6-2c20-11e7-a616-d7c8a68c1a66_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_trumpnra-350pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.305c71949d00

 

"In the months ahead, the NRA will be looking for Trump to put the weight of his office behind a bill that would make concealed-carry permits valid across state lines. Trump endorsed the concept during the campaign, likening it to the portability of driver’s licenses.

Also high on the NRA’s agenda is the Hearing Protection Act, which would remove federal registration and identification requirements for those seeking gun silencers. That measure has been touted by the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., an avid hunter, who also attended Friday’s conference."

If the NRA can accomplish this, then we have wasted our efforts pushing military carry vs. suppressors here in Illinois.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kwc Member

kwc

Posted
Posted
From the article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-am-going-to-come-through-for-you-trump-vows-to-nra/2017/04/28/3258b3e6-2c20-11e7-a616-d7c8a68c1a66_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_trumpnra-350pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.305c71949d00

 

"In the months ahead, the NRA will be looking for Trump to put the weight of his office behind a bill that would make concealed-carry permits valid across state lines. Trump endorsed the concept during the campaign, likening it to the portability of driverâs licenses.

 

Wake me up when national reciprocity passes both houses.

 

The President can make all the promises in the world, but if can't get through the Senate, it's doomed. We are at least 2 years away from seeing this happen.

 

The time spent working to improve our own laws in Illinois is time well spent, particularly when progress on legislation at the national level is so unpredictable and unreliable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gangrel Member

gangrel

Posted
Posted

From the article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-am-going-to-come-through-for-you-trump-vows-to-nra/2017/04/28/3258b3e6-2c20-11e7-a616-d7c8a68c1a66_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_trumpnra-350pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.305c71949d00

 

"In the months ahead, the NRA will be looking for Trump to put the weight of his office behind a bill that would make concealed-carry permits valid across state lines. Trump endorsed the concept during the campaign, likening it to the portability of driver’s licenses.

Also high on the NRA’s agenda is the Hearing Protection Act, which would remove federal registration and identification requirements for those seeking gun silencers. That measure has been touted by the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., an avid hunter, who also attended Friday’s conference."

If the NRA can accomplish this, then we have wasted our efforts pushing military carry vs. suppressors here in Illinois.

The HPA does nothing for us in Illinois, as NFA or not, suppressors are illegal by name in Illinois. Even if they are removed from the NFA, we still would need to pass a law here that would remove the state restriction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lockman Member

lockman

Posted
Posted
From the article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/i-am-going-to-come-through-for-you-trump-vows-to-nra/2017/04/28/3258b3e6-2c20-11e7-a616-d7c8a68c1a66_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_trumpnra-350pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.305c71949d00

 

"In the months ahead, the NRA will be looking for Trump to put the weight of his office behind a bill that would make concealed-carry permits valid across state lines. Trump endorsed the concept during the campaign, likening it to the portability of driverâs licenses.

 

Wake me up when national reciprocity passes both houses.

 

The President can make all the promises in the world, but if can't get through the Senate, it's doomed. We are at least 2 years away from seeing this happen.

 

The time spent working to improve our own laws in Illinois is time well spent, particularly when progress on legislation at the national level is so unpredictable and unreliable.

 

Just invoke the nuclear option, get rid of the debate rules that require the 60% . The cat is already out of the bag, so it can be done at anytime. Better to do it now with a solid majority in both houses in the presidency then allow the Democrats just to do it later when they have full control. The consequences are that we know it will flip back-and-forth over the years, but at least we won't have a stonewalling senate always obstructing the opposing side. The senate playground Will have common rules.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vito Member

vito

Posted
Posted

Getting rid of the filibuster is key to a lot of things, but Senate Majority Leader McConnell obviously thinks Senate traditions are more important than putting America back on the right path. I've contacted McConnell's office urging him to kill the filibuster but have not even received the courtesy of a response. Once again the Republicans are being played as fools by the Democrats, because I believe as well that if and when the Dems take back the Senate they will totally wipe out the filibuster rule and pass whatever they want with 51 united votes. Why the Republicans can't see this coming, and use their power while they have it, is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kwc Member

kwc

Posted
Posted

Getting rid of the filibuster is key to a lot of things, but Senate Majority Leader McConnell obviously thinks Senate traditions are more important than putting America back on the right path. I've contacted McConnell's office urging him to kill the filibuster but have not even received the courtesy of a response. Once again the Republicans are being played as fools by the Democrats, because I believe as well that if and when the Dems take back the Senate they will totally wipe out the filibuster rule and pass whatever they want with 51 united votes. Why the Republicans can't see this coming, and use their power while they have it, is beyond me.

 

Here's the latest take on eliminating the filibuster for legislation in the Senate:

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/05/02/mcconnell-trump-forget-ending-legislative-filibuster-okay/

 

Last month, after Republicans nuked the Supreme Court filibuster to get Gorsuch confirmed, Susan Collins and Chris Coons made a gesture of bipartisan conciliation by drafting a letter to McConnell urging him not to nuke the filibuster for legislation. That letter got 61 signatures in the Senate, almost evenly split between the parties — 32 Democrats, 28 Republicans, and one independent. McConnell would need to claw back at least 11 of those GOP votes to end the legislative filibuster, a heavy lift in the Senate made heavier by the fact that … some members of Trump’s own party are skeptical of his agenda.

 

If this reporting is accurate, the legislative filibuster is going to be very hard to break. Does national reciprocity earn 60+ votes? It doesn't stand a chance without it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kwc Member

kwc

Posted
Posted

Sen Mark Warner of VA, who claims to be a strong 2A supporter, openly announced his opposition to the Senate's version of the National Reciprocity bill today. The Senate bill currently has 36 sponsors, all Republicans.

 

http://www.guns.com/2017/05/04/virginia-democrat-comes-out-against-national-reciprocity/

 

While calling himself a “proud supporter of second amendment rights” the U.S. Senator whose constituency includes the National Rifle Association’s headquarters pushed back against a national concealed carry proposal.

 

U.S. Sen. Mark Warner on Wednesday slammed S. 446, a Republican-backed measure that would see concealed carry permits largely treated the same way that drivers licenses are with the respect that they would be recognized in every state. Warner met with gun violence survivors and their families on the lead up to his announcement that he could not support the bill.

 

“Virginia has determined what it deems to be appropriate concealed carry permitting standards, but neither the Commonwealth nor any other state should be subject to national laws that would override those standards and result in a race to the bottom,” he said in a statement.

 

“I’m a proud supporter of second amendment rights and will always advocate for responsible gun ownership for hunting, recreation, and self-defense,” Warner said. “But enough is enough. This tragic violence has to end. Knowing what I know today, if and when S. 446 comes before the Senate for a vote, I will oppose it in the interest of the safety of all Virginians.”

 

Ironically, Sen Warner's home state of VA ALREADY recognizes licenses and permits from all other states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vito Member

vito

Posted
Posted

How do you know if a politician opposes the rights guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment, regardless of what they tell their constituents? Just look at what political party they belong to. If they are a Democrat, you can be sure that when it comes down to voting, they will be part of the anti-gun faction, period. Kirsten Gillibrand is a perfect example. When she was running for the position of junior Senator from New York she espoused a strong support stance for the 2nd Amendment and the NRA. Immediately upon getting into the office she showed her true colors by speaking out against gun rights. Republicans cannot be 100% counted on to be gun rights supporters, but Democrats at the Federal level can be guaranteed 100% or very close to that to be against gun rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldMarineVet Member

OldMarineVet

Posted
Posted

Sen Mark Warner of VA, who claims to be a strong 2A supporter, openly announced his opposition to the Senate's version of the National Reciprocity bill today. The Senate bill currently has 36 sponsors, all Republicans.

 

http://www.guns.com/2017/05/04/virginia-democrat-comes-out-against-national-reciprocity/

 

 

 

While calling himself a “proud supporter of second amendment rights” the U.S. Senator whose constituency includes the National Rifle Association’s headquarters pushed back against a national concealed carry proposal.

 

U.S. Sen. Mark Warner on Wednesday slammed S. 446, a Republican-backed measure that would see concealed carry permits largely treated the same way that drivers licenses are with the respect that they would be recognized in every state. Warner met with gun violence survivors and their families on the lead up to his announcement that he could not support the bill.

 

“Virginia has determined what it deems to be appropriate concealed carry permitting standards, but neither the Commonwealth nor any other state should be subject to national laws that would override those standards and result in a race to the bottom,” he said in a statement.

 

“I’m a proud supporter of second amendment rights and will always advocate for responsible gun ownership for hunting, recreation, and self-defense,” Warner said. “But enough is enough. This tragic violence has to end. Knowing what I know today, if and when S. 446 comes before the Senate for a vote, I will oppose it in the interest of the safety of all Virginians.”

Ironically, Sen Warner's home state of VA ALREADY recognizes licenses and permits from all other states.

 

yeah, he seems slicker than most of our foes. Opposing National Reciprocity to end "tragic violence" is the giveaway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gangrel Member

gangrel

Posted
Posted

How do you know if a politician opposes the rights guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment, regardless of what they tell their constituents? Just look at what political party they belong to. If they are a Democrat, you can be sure that when it comes down to voting, they will be part of the anti-gun faction, period. Kirsten Gillibrand is a perfect example. When she was running for the position of junior Senator from New York she espoused a strong support stance for the 2nd Amendment and the NRA. Immediately upon getting into the office she showed her true colors by speaking out against gun rights. Republicans cannot be 100% counted on to be gun rights supporters, but Democrats at the Federal level can be guaranteed 100% or very close to that to be against gun rights.

Not that I vote Democrat, but ok...tell that to Brandon Phelps and Gary Forby. The generalizations work well when you don't try to turn them into absolutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vito Member

vito

Posted
Posted

You are correct. I should have been specific. I was referring to politicians at the Federal level. where regardless of personal beliefs the Democrats always vote in lock step with their Congressional leaders or face the end of their career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldMarineVet Member

OldMarineVet

Posted
Posted

 

I think national carry reciprocity needs to be established legislatively not through an executive action. Right now there have been at least 2 bills introduced for it:

 

1) Senate, S.446 - Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,Sen Cornyn, John [R-TX] (Introduced 02/27/17)

2) House, H.R.38 - Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017,Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC-8] (Introduced 01/03/2017)

 

Seems like Congress needs to be pressured since it's in their court. Trump has supported national carry reciprocity verbally and will sign it when passed. Can't make new law with executive action. Maybe our lobbyist, NRA, could help more now that Trump's Gorsuch nomination has succeeded. Let's pressure them. Below is how the NRA is looking at national carry reciprocity at a high level.

 

Agreed. Aside from the fact that many of us were all over Obama trying to rule (or in most cases, give the appearance of ruling) by executive action, and it is quite hypocritical to then want our conservative President to do the same, anything put in place by the stroke of a pen is one stroke of a pen away from being taken away by the next Liberal President. This needs to be done the right way, passed by Congress and signed into law, not handed down as an order from the Oval Office.

 

Also agree. That's why most of Trump's executive actions are to reverse Obama's many executive actions. It's my understanding Trump signed 28 bills in the first 100 days. I know one of them put the coal miners back to work. I should find out what the rest of them were.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soundguy Member

soundguy

Posted
Posted

 

Agreed. Aside from the fact that many of us were all over Obama trying to rule (or in most cases, give the appearance of ruling) by executive action, and it is quite hypocritical to then want our conservative President to do the same, anything put in place by the stroke of a pen is one stroke of a pen away from being taken away by the next Liberal President. This needs to be done the right way, passed by Congress and signed into law, not handed down as an order from the Oval Office.
Also agree. That's why most of Trump's executive actions are to reverse Obama's many executive actions. It's my understanding Trump signed 28 bills in the first 100 days. I know one of them put the coal miners back to work. I should find out what the rest of them were.

 

 

You may be disappointed. One creates a task force that already exists. Three are under attack in courts. This latest one on Religious Liberty confers bad advice on Churches who wish to be political...

 

"Lots of Trump's Executive Orders Don't Do Anything"

 

Why is the president asking for so many reports and creating so many committees?

Whenever President Donald Trump signs an executive action, he mugs to the throng of cameras and acts as if he has just radically changed the shape of the nation. But in reality, most of Trump's executive orders and memoranda merely form some sort of committee or ask for some agency to give Trump a report on the issues they claim to tackle months down the line. As Politico's Michael Grunwald put it in a review of Trump's executive actions, they're "essentially homework assignments issued on national television."

It's actually pretty common for presidents to call for studies or committees. Sometimes that's because they're new to the office and learning on the job; sometimes they're preparing big policy pushes. Yet experts I spoke to agree Trump has leaned on this common tactic especially hard—either because he's gearing up for some major initiatives, or because he's an ineffective showman more interested in pretending to do things than actually achieving his goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldMarineVet Member

OldMarineVet

Posted
Posted

Soundguy, you said "You may be disappointed. One creates a task force that already exists. Three are under attack in courts. This latest one on Religious Liberty confers bad advice on Churches who wish to be political..."

 

Those are executive actions, not bills, which I do know about. I'm 100% behind those that are in the courts. They are excellent and he'll win them once they get through the liberal judicial swamp and to the Supreme Court. How could providing religious freedom be "bad advice" to anybody? It's the first amendment! In this case the executive order rejects the "Johnson amendment" that punished political speech for non-profit religions. churches as he promised. Very well received across Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other religions in audience as link shows

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5OtFhlB4HY

 

Soundguy, you and I are opposite extremes on the subject of Trump. We're just wasting time talking past each other regarding Trump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...